This transcript and its speaker attributions were generated with AI assistance and may contain errors. Speaker names may be corrected in later releases. It is provided for search and accessibility; the official Council minutes remain authoritative.
1. Welcome and Speakers for Item 2.1.1. and Moved Into Closed Session
Unknown
Hello. Thanks for coming. Welcome to the Hawkesbury Local Planning Panel meeting today. This panel has been appointed by the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces to determine certain categories of DAs, and we've got two today. My name's Anthony Hudson, and I'm the Chair for today, and the other panel members are James Harrison, expert member, Philip Doreth, expert member, and Laura Scrivin is the community representative. I begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land, the Darug people, their elders past, present and emerging.
Anyone who's on Zoom, if you can just keep your microphones on mute at all times until you are asked to speak. The meeting is being audio visually recorded. Any part of the meeting that's closed session is not recorded. So what we'll do is, I'll come back. In terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this may involve recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting. The recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meetings and to enable podcasting and live streaming of panel meetings. Under the Code of Conduct for panels, members are required to disclose pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests in relation to matters on today's agenda. And I've just asked, I don't think there's any disclosure.
I, as in the last time, I declare a non-pecuniary interest, which is not significant and does not require any further action. Previously I was a partner in the legal firm of Wilshere Webb, Storn Beattie Solicitors, and the applicant's legal representative was employed at the firm as a solicitor for a few years up to March 21. I ceased being a partner in July 21 and I have had no contact with the legal representative since March 21. Therefore, I say this is not a significant disclosure and no further action is required. Now we have two matters on the agenda. I don't think there's anyone here to speak for the second matter, so we'll go to the first one in a moment. There's three minutes and I have a list of speakers, and I'll get to those in a moment.
Can I just say also, we know that the council, as a council, passed a resolution about this matter, which we mentioned before, and that we understand what the council's position is. And I know there are some councillors today talking, and they're just talking on their own as individuals. And also in relation, Mr. Creed, to you mentioned a video. Can I just say that we have now watched that video. We've taken the name of the people who spoke: Diane Williams, Marilyn Chapman, Lesley Mason, and yourself. We don't need to watch it again, but we watched it from start to finish a little while ago, so that's been done. So we're just down to hearing each of you who's put their names down to talk. You come over to the lectern there and press the button, and there'll be three minutes, and there'll be just a phone.
We'll keep a record of the three minutes, and you'll hear a phone thing, and I'll just see where you're at when we get to that. So we'll start now, and on the list we have Mary Lyons-Buckett.
Thank you, Mr Chair. Welcome everyone. I'm speaking today on behalf of the elected councillor body, who last October unanimously resolved to support residents in their opposition to this DA. Across all political lines, we've been contacted by locals who are deeply concerned about the introduction of a development of this scale into their community. They fear the wide-reaching detrimental and irreversible impacts on their environment, their daily lives and their unique lifestyle they cherish. This proposal would transform an historic small local centre into something unrecognisable. It would erase the distinct character of Kurrajong Heights and pose a serious threat to the fragile surrounding ecology.
A major concern in this development is the incompatibility with the objectives of the E1 zoning. The intent of this zone is to provide retail, business and community uses that genuinely serve those who live, work and visit the area. However, this proposal does not serve the needs of Kurrajong Heights residents. Instead, it concentrates visitors into a single high-impact location, creating traffic congestion, parking issues and serious challenges with drainage and effluent disposal. Another zone objective inconsistency is to ensure the scale and type of development is compatible with the character and amenity of the area. This proposal does not do that. Having served on this council for nearly 13 years, including as the mayor and deputy mayor, I deeply understand the importance of local knowledge when making planning decisions.
We must consider the history, geography and lifestyle of an area, along with its challenges, such as utility provision, ecological impacts and infrastructure capacity. We must exhibit consistency when strategic planning documents emphasise protecting our heritage, environment and local identity. Today we will hear residents express their concerns clearly about how they stand to be impacted. Too often we've seen poor planning decisions burden ratepayers for years, leading to long-term environmental damage and loss of amenity. Developments in areas without reticulated water and sewer, or with inadequate drainage solutions, can have serious unintended consequences. I've not seen an assessment of the downstream impacts of this development, and once these natural assets are lost, they cannot be reclaimed.
Economic growth and job creation are important, but they must align with the scale and function of the existing area. Any benefits must not come at the cost of irreversible damage. It is concerning to me that in 2025, we're still dealing with sullage collection as a critical issue. For those of us who live in areas where large trucks collect sullage, as I do, we know the impacts. The heavy rain inundations of recent times has seen a pattern of holding tanks overflowing in pump-out areas, resulting in both additional costs for people to have extra collections, but also environmental impacts. Pump-out.
Summarise what I've got here. Pump out doesn't come without associated odour and noise. There's no commitment, of course, to upgrade to a reticulated system in that area any time in the future. I appreciate that a group site visit has taken place, which would have shown the unique character of the area. I am—I'm sure the residents will elaborate on the confusion around some procedures to do with this DA, and the sheer number of submissions shows just how deeply concerned our community is. These factors around traffic congestion, light pollution, emergency management, and constant movement of water and sewage tankers would fundamentally disrupt the character of the area and diminish the quality of life of those who call Courageon Heights home. Thank you.
I'm sorry. Good afternoon. Thank you for hearing us out today. I don't want to repeat things or pre-sage things that other people are going to say. A Carrajung Heights resident, born there and have lived there slightly intermittently at one point, but still residing on the same property that I grew up on. I was born there in 1951. I'm also the president of the Carrajung Heights Bushfire Brigade, and I'm also a deputy captain with the Carrajung Heights Bushfire Brigade, but I'm speaking in my personal capacity today, although some of my observations may be pertinent in respect of my experience with the fire brigade. In my work, I work in a highly technical area sitting on compliance panels, going through the technical detail.
I do appreciate, in the context of a development application, that there are emotional issues and perceptual issues and just sort of personal preference issues, but I really want to just focus on the technical non-compliances. And what we have observed through this process to date is that in almost every instance where there's been a technical appraisal done, there are serious deficiencies in the technical appraisal. So I just want to go through those briefly. Or alternatively, the recommendation that's come from the council staff is against, is ultra vires the actual council regulations which have been promulgated. And I've only learnt in the last week or so that the Hawkesbury Development Control Plan has no particular influence over the analysis that council staff do in relation to the approval of a DA.
The first item I want to draw your attention to is item P4 pump-out systems in the Hawkesbury Development Control Plan. I have it here. You can look it up. I can leave these pieces of paper with you later. And let me just read it very briefly. Pump-out systems should only be considered as a last resort, and this is a 2023 plan, by the way, as a last resort and only where land is unsewered. And on site systems are not feasible. The development of unsewered land may only be permitted for the following developments: single dwelling houses, light industry, and single shops which don't require water supply greater than—so they're saying basically domestic supply level.
Subdivision, but one by implication large developments, one supposes of unsewered land that would rely on pump-out system not permitted. That's the first point. Second point, I want to draw your attention to the site plan. We did discuss this last time we talked to the panel. Up here we have Douglas Road on the left, which is really just a laneway historically. We have Bells Line Road at the bottom. We have Walks Hill Road going up to the top here. What you'll see is that the pump-out location, the connection point for the truck to come to collect the sewage, is down Douglas Road, which would mean that— Just so you know
Thank you very much. But whatever the case, Douglas Road really not suitable for heavy traffic of any kind. Okay, I just want to draw your attention to the size of the vehicles that Staples will need to use to extract the human and other waste from the site. These are very large vehicles. If you visited the site this morning, you would have seen the parking constraints there. Something that you wouldn't have seen this morning is something like this: a photograph of the approach to the site coming down Bells Line Road from the west at the intersection of Walks Hill Road. This is a frequent occurrence. This isn't the worst example of it. The mist is often much deeper than that, and it arises, and you can talk to the Met Bureau about it, because of the peculiar orographic circumstances of Kurrajong Heights, the uplift.
As a consequence, that intersection— And the intersection at Douglas Road is often heavily misted in, so traffic making egress from that site or moving into the site will be problematic. On the RFS side of things, we have a report from the RFS, which, in my view, and speaking as an engineer, is professionally deficient. I have written to the RFS and raised 21 points of exception. This is leaving aside another exception which one of the other speakers will make today. I have received no reply, and these are detailed technical exceptions to the requirements of the RFS. To give you just one example, the New South Wales Fire Brigade and the RFS have a requirement for hard stand for fire vehicles when they come to attach to a water source to address a fire.
This is the fire and rescue requirement that there be an 18 metre clearance for tankers to be able to connect to a static or an active water supply to be able to address a fire situation. That's the requirement.
Here's the picture from the site plan. One of the things that you will notice from the requirements of the RFS is that the carriageway should not be obstructed, leading aside all of the other complications of getting tankers on site and the fact that if there's a fire on that site, there won't just be one tanker there; there will be multiple tankers on the site. It is a requirement of the standards of Fire Service that we have multiple brigade appliances there, including Town Brigade, Sancoura Heights Brigade, the one that I'm a member of. Here's a picture showing the 18 metres, which protrudes basically into the middle. Possibly further across Walks Hill Road. So I think that also needs to be taken into account.
No, I think that will do for the moment because we have other people who have objections to raise. But I just want to emphasise that these are technical objections where the requirements are not being met, where compliance has not been obtained, and yet we have a recommendation to approve. Thank you.
Just one thing about, I just mentioned, so you know, you mentioned about the sewerage. The sewerage is now connected. The sewerage trucks will come down Walks Hill, the entrance of Walks Hill Road. Yeah, I'm just saying, just so everybody knows. Yeah, and the place where they collect, and there's been traffic engineering evidence given by the applicant about they can do all the turns and all that sort of stuff, but that's just for information. So next
Planning for bushfire protection 2019 is the bushfire guide for council, planners, fire authorities and developers. I will refer to this as the planning guide in my discussion. The asset protection zone is a fuel reduced area, which provides a mandated buffer zone, a legally mandated buffer zone. The methodology to determine that asset protection zone is basically detailed in four steps. One is sort out the vegetation, look at the vegetation 150 metres in all directions from the site.
Then look at the effective slope at 100 metres from the effective site, again in all directions. The other issue is the fire fighting danger index has to be taken into consideration. When you combine those three factors together, you come up with an asset protection zone. This is the mandated area to be left clear. The bushfire risk assessment picked a favourable direction for the asset protection zone, not in accordance with steps one and two of what I gave you earlier. The Rural Fire Service purported, which means they made up, the fictional suggestion with steps one and two above, that they selected the fire in the most likely attack level to
Determine the asset protection zone. The fire consultant's risk assessment and correspondence make no mention of the likely fire attack level. The asset protection zone direction used does not comply with the planning guide, which states all directions. There's just no doubt about that at all. A recent survey, a recently conducted survey in the forested areas southwest of the proposed development. The effective slope based on the survey is 32 degrees. It's very steep; you can't even walk on it. The minimum distance for the asset protection zone must be more than 81 metres and will extend over into the adjoining lands.
The Bush Fire Consultant, in their letter dated the 17th of January this year, or last year, stated the development relies upon external asset protection zones located on adjoining land. So there's no doubt about that the asset protection zone is going into adjoining land. The Bush Fire Consultant himself agreed with this. The southwest side of the development slope to the creek, which is unmanaged forest, and a slope over 30 degrees are not able to be managed as the requirement in the planning guide.
Know exactly. You can move past that. I've read that. I know what you're talking about, about 88B instruments and all those sort of things and all that. You understand
All that. That hasn't been done. Then the Rural Fire Service, on the 6th of February this year, advising after two Rural Fire visits, the state of the vegetation of the creek will support a bushfire. The Bush Fire Consultant replied to the RFS, the high moisture content of the soil, the plants in the riparian zone would not support the same fire intensity of vegetation above the ledge. The Rural Fire accepted this non-quantifiable—I'm an engineer, that's a non-quantifiable below statement. The ecologist, Dickie Trulock, will follow up on my comments about the fireability of all the areas. Basically what I'm saying is Bushfire made the approval on a non-bonafide basis, and it shouldn't have been approved.
Thank you. No, no, that's fine. And by the way, we did receive your submission and the reference to the court case, and we've had all that too. Yeah, but
Just the last paragraph where I talked about the thing that I submitted in February last year about the soil type, etc., etc., came later because I put in the GIP information, and that came later. So that's not in what I sent you earlier on.
Hi, my name is Nicola Trulock. I'm a retired senior ecologist and former natural resource and interim bushfire management officer for the City of Parramatta Council. I wish to speak about significant omissions and incorrect information within assessments prepared to support the DA. A detailed justification of these issues is contained in the report provided to the Hawkesbury Local Planning Panel. Issue one: the social impact assessment and statement of environmental effects do not mention an incompatible land use due to proximity to St David's Church, nor does it address social impact or increased risk of interpersonal conflict arising from incompatible land use activities on local parishioners.
This display of bias is not surprising when you learn that both reports have been prepared by Barma Projects Proprietary Limited, the applicant for the DA. This is a clear-cut example of conflict of interest. Why did Hawkesbury Council not insist that these reports be rectified and prepared by an independent consultant? Issue two. No ecological impact assessment was undertaken to assess impacts resulting from clearing native and non-native vegetation forming potential habitat for 23 threatened species known to occur in the area, nor was it assessed in the Statement of Environmental Effects. Ecological impact assessment addressing Section 7.3 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 is required to support a DA under Part 4 of the EP&A Act when threatened species habitat, no matter how inconsequential, is to be removed.
I raised this concern in my submission, and the council response is located on page 52 of the agenda. This response is irrelevant, as those legislative tools do not preclude the need for environmental impact assessment, but instead provide guidance on assessment type and survey requirements. Approval should not have been granted based on the absence of an environmental impact assessment alone. How does a council officer not know this? Issue three. The vegetation classification assessment states that vegetation along Little Weeny Creek consists of dry rainforest. I conducted my own survey and have determined that 33 Douglas Road contains dry rainforest, whereas 2 Queen Street contains wet sclerophyll forest.
The bushfire assessment report states that dry rainforest presents a low bushfire risk. They are wrong, as dry rainforest has a seasonal dry period during which plants shed their leaves and ferns dry out, resulting in high fuel loads, just like wet sclerophyll forest. This vegetation is part of a west, east and south-north fire run connected to large tracts of unmanaged wilderness in Blue Mountains National Park. If a fire gets into one of these runs and is pushed by strong winds, it will rapidly advance towards Kurrajong Heights, and RFS will not be able to stop it, as they did not require regular bushfire hazard reduction within the APZ as a condition of consent.
Imagine trying to evacuate along one road with hundreds of panicked pub patrons. My career was spent guiding clients through the development assessment process, and I am dumbfounded by the numerous errors within these non-compliant reports. How did they manage to pass the scrutiny of council, and how did the development application get to this point?
I'm talking on behalf of a fairly loosely formed committee in Kurrajong Heights. We've brought together a significant number of, frankly, quite talented residents in opposition to this development. One of the things that came out of the previous planning panel meeting was some questions in relation to truck deliveries. And you should all have a copy of this report. You've received that. Okay, so I've quoted in the report from your minutes of the last minute. And Transport for New South Wales clearly stated that all traffic has to go through the car park. The car park has a 2.4 metre height. Clearly none of the trucks doing deliveries to Carriageong Heights will meet that. So the reality, if you approve the pub, is that all vehicle, heavy vehicle access will have to go through Warksell Road.
Good. But that in itself has some significant problems, as we will see. The sewerage pickup has been relocated from Douglas Road into the delivery area of the pub. And I make the point, one, that our existing delivery service from Staples will not fit in that area. It's an articulated vehicle. Secondly, any truck delivery cannot take effect when the waste delivery is being done. The figures that were resubmitted by the developer in relation to the likely requirements for sewerage were massively miscalculated. They implied they'd only be using a 600-person pub, and they only used, like , 100 people in the pub, they'd only be using a 600-person pub half the time. The reality is if you've got a 600-person pub, that capacity exists for lunchtime and for the evening.
So the effective capacity is double, and the potential for waste from this location is significant. It is a major problem. And previous speakers have talked about the DCP. Water deliveries require use of a hard standing. When the water truck is on that standing at the entrance in Walks Hill Road, there are a couple of problems. Anybody trying to get out of the pub car park has their view blocked. School children which are dropped in front of Lock Hill House and walk up Walks Hill Road, they will have to walk around the water tanker because there is no other way. And you visited the site this morning, and you would have a clear understanding of how short the distance is from Bells Line of Road to the pub car park exit, and the amount of distance is even shorter when we get to
I'll be as quick as I can. When a water tanker is on the hard standing, there's a sliding gate which prevents exit from the pub car park. If you have a look at the swept path analysis, any truck entering or exiting the pub car park goes into the opposite lane, and that's a really restricted, dangerous area as it is at the moment. The truck deliveries, we did a survey of the Archibald. Our estimation is we're going to have an average of seven deliveries a day. So there's quite a significant possibility to have two trucks contending to do a delivery. The reality of that truck turning bay is it can't be used. You can't go and turn round if there's a truck in the loading bay. So any truck going into the pub is going to have to reverse back out onto Walks Hill Road, and that
The loading bay has been incorrectly shown on all of the plans. If you're going to have forklift access around a truck and nobody's going to drop off beer without forklift access, you need a significantly larger area. If you have a look on item seven on my report, I've calculated that it encroaches onto four of the car park spaces. The gas tank location has not been nominated. It's specified in the RFS. Yeah, there's got to be 10 metres. If you have a look at the only possible place that vented to atmosphere, there's trees all around it.
The absolute basics of Zone E1 ruling: single storey development. How can you possibly miss that? It's a clear requirement on Zone E1 to have a single storey development. I'll give it to you. It also massively fails on the public interest. 373 objections.
Okay, I live in Walks Hill Road. My family have lived on Carriageway Heights since the 1830s. So I have a vested interest in the development of the area. I'm going to read out a summary from Chris Hallam on the car parking. Chris can't be here today because this meeting was called and he's already overseas. Chris is recognised as a traffic expert and is on the Hawkesbury Planning Panel.
Page 42 of the assessment report discusses car parking, where the requirements for 93 parking spaces based on the DCP is set out. This does not include the nine units plus manager units, which would add 10 spaces, or an additional two spaces for the proposed day spa. This report argues that guests of the units will be hotel customers. This cannot be guaranteed, with the close-by dining alternatives of Lockhill House and the Sublime next door. The day spa would likely to be used at the weekend lunchtime period, allowing, say, five units to be hotel customers. The DCP requirement would be for 100 car spaces. Council's assessment relies on the applicant's parking assessment, which indicates that only 74 spaces would be required for a maximum of 255 patrons on the site.
Allowing six spaces for staff and, for the moment, ignoring the day spa and motel units, this implies a car driver percentage of 27%. My surveys of the Archibald Hotel over 14 hours of surveys over five days found an average of 51% car drivers. At this locally surveyed rate, 255 patrons would demand 130 patron parking spaces, plus six for staff, plus two for the day spa, plus, say, five for the motel guests, a total of 143 car spaces, compared with the proposed supply of 75 spaces. There, a consent condition limiting patrons to 255 would not resolve the significant shortfall in car parking. I note that on page 42 of the assessment report, Mr Santos states, and I'll abbreviate this, that the 51% was provided, was surveyed transits to Archibald, and it did not distinguish between persons utilising the functions of the Archibald or visitors who are using the drive-through bottle shop at the Archibald.
This supposed pertinent comment is totally wrong because there is no drive-through bottle shop at the Archibald. There was not one when the survey was undertaken, and according to the owner, there has never been a drive-through bottle shop at this hotel. The liquor display is minimal. Customers seeking a bottle shop for takeaway liquor go to the substantial bottle shop at the IGA, which is near the proposed hotel site, which also has convenient parking. The survey average of 51 percent car drivers over 14 hours of surveys on five days provides an accurate estimate of the likely mode split at the proposed hotel. Note that a courtesy bus was trialled at the Archibald and was discontinued due to lack of demand.
Yep, okay. And the one point that I would like to make there, that we did an extended— we examined all the street parking within 400 metres of the Walks Hill Road exit, and there is a total of 37. Now understand, you saw Walks Hill Road this morning. That's steep. Bells Line of Road going up to Douglas is steep. I don't know if you looked at Douglas Road East, and that's very steep. So there's a total of 37 car parks available, which need to be shared with existing businesses. And the church, if the church loses its current car park, it also needs another 11 spaces to be available. Thanks.
One . We can watch . No, we can get it. It'll be attached to your... Yeah, yeah. We'll get it. We can look at that after. I should have said at the beginning, sorry, before you start, this is the open session and then after this we have a closed session, as you probably remember from last time, and then that's when I kick you out. That's exactly right. And then we discuss it again and the decision's made and it'll be on the council's website in a week or less than a week or whatever.
Good morning, everybody. I'm Thomas Aczel, been a resident in the area at Kurrajong Heights for 38 years. I'm reading a report by Chris Hallam as he is overseas. Chris is a bachelor of engineering. Just so you know,
Okay. I'll say very briefly then. I find it extraordinary that a development application that misses out on multiple codes that are listed by the council for development can even be considered for approval. It doesn't meet requirements for sewerage, doesn't meet requirements for parking, doesn't meet requirements for traffic. Every single submission is faulty, and the fact that it even got to this point is extraordinary. Councillors unanimously are in support of the local residents who are objecting to this development. I am astounded by the lack of power of the community to object to something that clearly does not meet development guidelines in any shape or form. I think that'll do.
Now, I think we've gone through the complete list. Is that correct? No one's here. So now we have representatives from the applicant, I think, on Zoom.
Have on Zoom our heritage consultant and our traffic consultant, Mr Vinstone and Mr Dov is on our heritage consultant. We also have our architect, who will also address if there's any issues regarding design, etc. Right. But just quickly, it won't take too much time. I know you've read all the reporting, etc. Just with some of the resident points, we note that the RFS visited the site twice, so the comments in regards to— Made up or false documentation shouldn't be even looked at. The RFS visited the site twice. They provided their general terms of approval. There was also a comment about an APZ, that the final decision of the RFS is that an APZ is not required because of the managed land next door, and that an inner protection zone is provided on our site.
And that's what the application considers, that as long as it complies with the RFS requirements, which we say we will, in accordance with the conditions of consent the Council's put forward, which are agreed, the site fully complies with the RFS. In regards to traffic, we're still dumbfounded that the residents have issues with traffic when Transport for New South Wales have provided their concurrence to the proposal. In regards to parking, the new DCP, we fully comply with the new DCP. We have 20 more parking spots than is required, and the panel can see that in their assessment report as provided by the Council. There's also a comment about 600 patrons. We're not sure where that comment comes from.
The conditions of consent are clear that it's a maximum of 255 patrons for the trial period, and following the trial period, 300 patrons. Regarding the eco assessment, there was a report prepared by John White, a ecologist, which was part of the DA application, and Council has never raised any issue with that document, and it's there for the panel. The site's also not located on any biodiversity map. It's not mapped Koala. There's no clearing on site. The site's a well-cleared site, as you would have seen this morning, with no trees. There was a comment about the sewer location. That's not on Douglas. It's on the trucks will service the site from walks, and there's a suction point location in the loading bay areas.
Traffic consultants have already provided their detailed assessment about the transport movements from the loading bay. There's also concerns about conflict of truck movements, as the panel knows that's an operational matter. The pub, when it's operating, will obviously ensure that the deliveries don't happen all at the same time in order to negate any issues with the use of the loading bay. The acoustic report has also been prepared It recommends times for those truck movements to occur, and those are conditions of consent which the applicant will abide by.
There was an issue about gas tank locations, and I think there was a photo in one of the reports. The panel shouldn't have any concern in regards to the gas tanking. The photo that was in the objector's report is actually an auto gas tank taken from a petrol station. So that's a tank that taxis and people that use LPG gas fill up their vehicles with. That's not proposed on our site at all. The gas will power water and a cooktop. We've spoken to Elgas and we've provided the council with those documents, that there is amical space behind the staff car parking for six 210-kilo gas bottles. It fully complies with Mr. Santoso has those details, so it's behind the staff spots. It fits six to seven Elgas tanks, and they're fully compliant with Elgas's requirements.
We've personally spoken to Elgas and we're happy to provide, and we've provided the details of the Elgas area. So that's pretty much, oh, then the truck sizes that were proposed. It's clear from the attachment to Its attachment seeks to the assessment report. It's the hydraulic services report prepared by Sparks and Partners. It shows the truck size. The truck is a two-axle truck. Its height is 3.4 metres, and there's no proposing any of those trucks to go into the car parking. It's an open air car parking where the loading bay is, so there's no height restrictions. And the site's designed for an 8.8 metre truck in any event. The length of the trucks that we anticipate will service the development are eight metres, so they fully comply with the site's requirements Diego's our architect.
I'm not sure if the panel want to ask any questions of our architect, but they are here today. There's also heritage consultant online and our traffic consultant online, so we're happy for any questions to be directed to those experts.
So that brings us to the end of this public session. We will now consider, and as I said, there'll be a decision after. And I'll take on what you said about your report and I'll find that out and we'll know when we discuss it. Thank you.
